1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) except where the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) is “Co-Defendant B (Appointed Party B)” (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance judgment, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (section 11 to Chapter 3) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the first instance judgment (section 6, No. 2 of the first instance judgment, No. 11 to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on the parties’ assertion and judgment are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 3 through 4, 8, 21, 5, 14, and 7) except for the cases where the parties’ assertion and judgment are written or added as follows, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

"The defendant asserts that it is improper for the plaintiff to calculate the lost income based on the whole hospitalization period claimed by the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff to receive other treatment unrelated to the accident of this case during the hospitalization period, in light of the plaintiff's injury level and the degree of operation.

In general, in cases of receiving hospitalized treatment due to an accident, barring any special circumstance to deem that all or part of the hospitalized treatment is unreasonable, such as where the period of hospitalization is clearly long, in light of the fact that the treatment was not related to the accident in question, or that the treatment was conducted undermining treatment even though it is not medically required to be hospitalized, or where the treatment was conducted undermining treatment, or where the treatment was conducted undermining the part or degree of injury, and the progress of treatment, etc., and thus, it should be deemed

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49252, Dec. 12, 2003).